CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling

Vino'sGhost

I think rich is a bot.

Trots out the apologist lines re rules not being broken, difficult issues like moral failure means detractors are attacked and credibility ruined. Its constant. I think you're encouraged to do this. Like Armstrong PR plus.

Vino'sGhost

nickice wrote:

Pross wrote:

Not really, Varnish will have a hard time proving unfair dismissal when they look at results. Even her own account of what happened has any comments being made after they told her she was out. She's also going to have to defend that she went to the national press criticising BC decisions while still being in the squad which everyone seems to conveniently overlook.

Was it not a case of non-renewal? I never did employment law but I'd be surprised if, in this case, it wasn't at the absolute discretion of the management.

Was she even an employee?

Vino'sGhost

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

You would be amazed by what you and the rest of the press reliant world are unaware of.

That will be 99.9% of the rest of the world then. I'm well aware of the frailties of the press and media but some parts do a good job. You have contributed no facts yet remain critical towards the rest of us for being ignorant of this 'inside information'. In the absence of you providing the information we are unaware of, your uttering's are no more believable than those of the press.

Not true. Saddles is trying his damndest to keep a promise of confidentiality, when there are facts about the the sainted and oh so wronged Jess which put a different complexion on things.

But you go with the attacks, you, that makes you real strong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

He should try and contain himself then, the wink wink nod nod doesn't add anything.

nickice

Vino'sGhost wrote:

nickice wrote:

Pross wrote:

Not really, Varnish will have a hard time proving unfair dismissal when they look at results. Even her own account of what happened has any comments being made after they told her she was out. She's also going to have to defend that she went to the national press criticising BC decisions while still being in the squad which everyone seems to conveniently overlook.

Was it not a case of non-renewal? I never did employment law but I'd be surprised if, in this case, it wasn't at the absolute discretion of the management.

Was she even an employee?

No idea though I guess so. Do you mean was she freelance? Initially I thought it seemed like a case of sour grapes on her part. I'm still not convinced it's not but it's pretty clear that Sutton was the wrong choice of director.

mfin

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

You would be amazed by what you and the rest of the press reliant world are unaware of.

That will be 99.9% of the rest of the world then. I'm well aware of the frailties of the press and media but some parts do a good job. You have contributed no facts yet remain critical towards the rest of us for being ignorant of this 'inside information'. In the absence of you providing the information we are unaware of, your uttering's are no more believable than those of the press.

Not true. Saddles is trying his damndest to keep a promise of confidentiality, when there are facts about the the sainted and oh so wronged Jess which put a different complexion on things.

But you go with the attacks, you, that makes you real strong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess it's a case of if you know that I know who I know, you know I know a whole lot more than the press know, or is letting the public know. :P
If you don't then, I'm just another poster.
Not to worry.
I was a bit down last night, not unrelated, but not directly JV.
Frustration much.

If you know Jess and you aren't allowed to say anything, don't say anything, it's quite simple.

If it is irresistible to say something when someone supposes that a situation could possibly be a certain way, just don't bother unless you can say why.

If it is irresistible to say something because you feel you're on the inside, but can't reveal anything, don't bother either.

It's not really a problem, but I can't help but think that if I was Jess I'd much rather you said nowt, it's only a forum and if she's told you things in confidence, not only should you not say them, maybe you should not even hint you've been told things either, I wouldn't.

By the way, it doesn't wind me up in the slightest, it's such a micro-issue, but maybe just let the situation unfold until such point you can and are allowed to say what you know?

top_bhoy

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

You would be amazed by what you and the rest of the press reliant world are unaware of.

That will be 99.9% of the rest of the world then. I'm well aware of the frailties of the press and media but some parts do a good job. You have contributed no facts yet remain critical towards the rest of us for being ignorant of this 'inside information'. In the absence of you providing the information we are unaware of, your uttering's are no more believable than those of the press.

Not true. Saddles is trying his damndest to keep a promise of confidentiality, when there are facts about the the sainted and oh so wronged Jess which put a different complexion on things.

But you go with the attacks, you, that makes you real strong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

He should try and contain himself then, the wink wink nod nod doesn't add anything.

Precisely. ...it's all 'I know and you don't so I'm better' schoolground stuff. Better to have kept the confidentiality and said nothing and refrain from criticising those who base opinions on what information is available.

No_Ta_Doctor

I think that's a bit harsh. I imagine Blazing has been biting his tongue throughout this thread. He hasn't given away anything at all of anything confidential, he's merely let us in on the fact that other viewpoints are available and are held within BC. I think we all know when something like this happens that we only get to see the tip of the iceberg - and through the distorted lens of whatever narrative the leading players and media outlets want to foist on us - and it's welcome to have a reminder that there's more going on than that.

EDIT: I don't think Blazing has been critical of anyone for being uninformed, btw. But he's allowed to be critical of their opinion.

awavey

nickice wrote:

Pross wrote:

Not really, Varnish will have a hard time proving unfair dismissal when they look at results. Even her own account of what happened has any comments being made after they told her she was out. She's also going to have to defend that she went to the national press criticising BC decisions while still being in the squad which everyone seems to conveniently overlook.

Was it not a case of non-renewal? I never did employment law but I'd be surprised if, in this case, it wasn't at the absolute discretion of the management.

it sounded like it was which is always harder to then appeal against, but I never really understood why the contracts in an Olympic year still matched the track season in a program dedicated towards the Olympics as a goal, but then you had the podium programme announcement in December so who knows what calendar they follow, though Im sure its not half as random as it simply appears

But youd have thought contractual decisions impacting Olympics, would have been decided at least the year before, because you are then actually admitting youve flushed nearly 4 years worth of money into developing a rider who "hasnt made the grade" down the toilet if you dump them at that stage,which ultimately cost you a shot at a medal in an event which affects your funding going forward, that would seem a pretty big financial mistake by the coaches & performance director...

frisbee

They had no shot at a medal, they failed to qualify. I'm surprised they retained her for as long as they did.

DeVlaeminck

frisbee wrote:

They had no shot at a medal, they failed to qualify. I'm surprised they retained her for as long as they did.

Isn't her argument that they failed to qualify because of the way BC handled the qualification.

We'll see - there are leaks from the independent report in the press which don't paint BC in a good light but maybe they are selective or are people going to argue the report itself comes to the wrong conclusions ?

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

frisbee wrote:

They had no shot at a medal, they failed to qualify. I'm surprised they retained her for as long as they did.

Isn't her argument that they failed to qualify because of the way BC handled the qualification.

We'll see - there are leaks from the independent report in the press which don't paint BC in a good light but maybe they are selective or are people going to argue the report itself comes to the wrong conclusions ?

I have some sympathy for her argument but she handled it really badly and if they had qualified a team I don't think she would have been in it.

As for the report and arguing it has come to the wrong conclusion if the leaks are true isn't that exactly what the report is saying about the previous investigation? If so you have to investigations into the same incident saying different things and so you have to accept one is right and one wrong then choose which you believe (or, as is usually the case, the truth is somewhere inbetween). As I said previously it's got a bit of a feel of being pushed into admitting guilt in the hope of moving on.

What I'd find funny is if BC had used the old trick of giving a suspected mole an amended report in order to out them - they really need to find out who is leaking stuff and get rid of them.

salsiccia1

No tA Doctor wrote:

I think that's a bit harsh. I imagine Blazing has been biting his tongue throughout this thread. He hasn't given away anything at all of anything confidential, he's merely let us in on the fact that other viewpoints are available and are held within BC. I think we all know when something like this happens that we only get to see the tip of the iceberg - and through the distorted lens of whatever narrative the leading players and media outlets want to foist on us - and it's welcome to have a reminder that there's more going on than that.

EDIT: I don't think Blazing has been critical of anyone for being uninformed, btw. But he's allowed to be critical of their opinion.

Yep, all this. And if anyone wants an example of the audience this story has been aimed at by the emboldened above:

https://twitter.com/anitathetweeter/status/840853586850521088

DeVlaeminck

Salsiccia1 wrote:

[
EDIT: I don't think Blazing has been critical of anyone for being uninformed, btw. But he's allowed to be critical of their opinion

Yep, all this. And if anyone wants an example of the audience this story has been aimed at by the emboldened above:

https://twitter.com/anitathetweeter/status/840853586850521088

Most of the press coverage I've been reading has been the Guardian and the BBC and then a bit in the cycling press and what I see on here.

DeVlaeminck

deleted double post

Lanterne_Rogue

It's perfectly possible for JV to be a horrible person who is bloody useless at riding a bike and for British Cycling to have serious structural problems. The two aren't necessarily linked.

surrey_commuter

underlayunderlay wrote:

It's perfectly possible for JV to be a horrible person who is bloody useless at riding a bike and for British Cycling to have serious structural problems. The two aren't necessarily linked.

If British Cycling admits to serious structural problems how will they explain their conveyor belt of talent winning nearly every gold medal in men's track cycling at successive Olympic Games?

smithy21

Surrey Commuter wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

It's perfectly possible for JV to be a horrible person who is bloody useless at riding a bike and for British Cycling to have serious structural problems. The two aren't necessarily linked.

If British Cycling admits to serious structural problems how will they explain their conveyor belt of talent winning nearly every gold medal in men's track cycling at successive Olympic Games?

Jiffy bags?

I see Emma Pooley is have a pop in The Times today.

Richmond Racer 2

'Got a stiffy, here's a jiffy' was clearly well ahead of its time

yorkshireraw

smithy21 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

It's perfectly possible for JV to be a horrible person who is bloody useless at riding a bike and for British Cycling to have serious structural problems. The two aren't necessarily linked.

If British Cycling admits to serious structural problems how will they explain their conveyor belt of talent winning nearly every gold medal in men's track cycling at successive Olympic Games?

Jiffy bags?

I see Emma Pooley is have a pop in The Times today.

Pooley, who was brought back into the BC fold, despite not showing any sort of Road race form, and given an Olympic place ahead of arguably more deserving riders. So basically a beneficiary of unfair treatment to others.

cruff

YorkshireRaw wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

It's perfectly possible for JV to be a horrible person who is bloody useless at riding a bike and for British Cycling to have serious structural problems. The two aren't necessarily linked.

If British Cycling admits to serious structural problems how will they explain their conveyor belt of talent winning nearly every gold medal in men's track cycling at successive Olympic Games?

Jiffy bags?

I see Emma Pooley is have a pop in The Times today.

Pooley, who was brought back into the BC fold, despite not showing any sort of Road race form, and given an Olympic place ahead of arguably more deserving riders. So basically a beneficiary of unfair treatment to others.

This. And did nothing to justify being given that place when she did ride either. If anything, that highlights incompetence at BC - still the daftest decision made during selection last year - even more so than originally omitting Cummings from the squad. BC have no clue when it comes to road racing - never have had, and never will - because it's not something that can be quantified like the track.

DeVlaeminck

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Pooley, who was brought back into the BC fold, despite not showing any sort of Road race form, and given an Olympic place ahead of arguably more deserving riders. So basically a beneficiary of unfair treatment to others.

Yes that Emma Pooley, what of it?

Jess Varnish is apparently just bitter because she didn't get picked, but Pooley should shut up because she did get picked? I don't get the relevance of the point you are making - seems a strange time to reopen the debate on Olympic selection.

RichN95.

I don't understand what Emma Pooley and Nicole Cooke expected from British Cycling. They were road pros. They rode for BC once a year. It was their pro teams that were the key to their career. Lizzie Armitstead seems to require nothing from them. Has Chris Froome ever even been to Manchester?

kingstongraham

The quotes from Emma Pooley seem very selective, and don't necessarily reflect the headline - would be interesting to read the whole interview really.

dish_dash

RichN95 wrote:

Has Chris Froome ever even been to Manchester?

yeah... book signing in 2014

yorkshireraw

DeVlaeminck wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Pooley, who was brought back into the BC fold, despite not showing any sort of Road race form, and given an Olympic place ahead of arguably more deserving riders. So basically a beneficiary of unfair treatment to others.

Yes that Emma Pooley, what of it?

Jess Varnish is apparently just bitter because she didn't get picked, but Pooley should shut up because she did get picked? I don't get the relevance of the point you are making - seems a strange time to reopen the debate on Olympic selection.

Pooley is complaining about the way the organisation worked, and may well have a fair point, but given she was advantaged to a degree by the way it worked - being given an Olympics place ahead of Dani King for example, when BC went back on it's criteria - it seems a bit churlish to then raise issue with it. If she felt that strongly she should have turned down the Olympic slot and used that as the platform to complain about BC.

This is a quote in the Times today from Pooley "But there were differences in how different riders were treated." Indeed.

RichN95.

YorkshireRaw wrote:

This is a quote in the Times today from Pooley "But there were differences in how different riders were treated." Indeed.

I dare say there were differences in how different riders behaved as well.

I expect Chris Hoy and Laura Trott are easier to deal with than Mark Cavendish and Nicole Cooke.

DeVlaeminck

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Pooley is complaining about the way the organisation worked, and may well have a fair point, but given she was advantaged to a degree by the way it worked - being given an Olympics place ahead of Dani King for example, when BC went back on it's criteria - it seems a bit churlish to then raise issue with it. If she felt that strongly she should have turned down the Olympic slot and used that as the platform to complain about BC.

This is a quote in the Times today from Pooley "But there were differences in how different riders were treated." Indeed.

I accept it may be a bit of a non-story in so much as she's not saying much she hasn't said before and all she seems to be doing here is commenting on someone elses findings - all the same she has a right to express her opinion even if the press are giving it rather more prominence than it deserves at this point. I don't know how far she's gone out of her way to have her say on this story now and how far this is just a comment taken out of context of a longer piece.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

I don't understand what Emma Pooley and Nicole Cooke expected from British Cycling. They were road pros. They rode for BC once a year. It was their pro teams that were the key to their career. Lizzie Armitstead seems to require nothing from them. Has Chris Froome ever even been to Manchester?

Attack those not on message eh BOTRICH

Vino'sGhost

LOLOLOL a very very qualified response from Froome on the subject

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I don't understand what Emma Pooley and Nicole Cooke expected from British Cycling. They were road pros. They rode for BC once a year. It was their pro teams that were the key to their career. Lizzie Armitstead seems to require nothing from them. Has Chris Froome ever even been to Manchester?

Attack those not on message eh BOTRICH

A casual visitor to the forum, reading this, might wonder when you were due to hit puberty.

I'd like to know why Pooley is quoted as saying: "The report is pretty shocking."
She hasn't read the report. The report, as I understand it, is some way from being completed.
Surely, to comment upon an unconfirmed leak is a bit rash?
Why not wait for the official report.
It all seems a bit too orchestrated to me.
In fact I'm pretty sure it has been since day one.